What is Deception in UK Immigration and how to handle it.

An allegation associated with deception will result in the refusal of the instant application and may have very serious consequences with regard to future immigration applications. Paragraph 322 (1A) provides norms that the application for stay must be refused in the subsequent circumstances.

Paragraph 323 offers that leave may be restricted if deception was used within seeking leave to remain or perhaps an alternative to stay in UK. Moreover, Paragraph 320(7B) of the Immigration Rules in UK points out that an applicant who previously used Deception in an software or in order to obtain files in support to the application should not be given any access clearance. He must be rejected unless the applicant utilized Deception in an application with regard to entry clearance more than ten years ago.

This means, if Deception is found, application is going to be refused instantly and unless an applicant is trying to enter the UK on restricted human rights grounds the actual applicant will not be granted authorization to return to the UK for at least ten years.

In order for deception to be found there has to be dishonesty involved rather than an easy mistake. This was made clear through the Court of Appeal and it is mentioned clearly in paragraph 55.

All aspects of paragraph 322(1A) and its sister sentences 320(7A), 321(i) and 321A(2) are treated as ‘Deception’ under paragraph 6 associated with HC 395, which highly implies that a strong valid reason is needed on the part of the applicant. In case the applicant is not able to justify, it would result in the situation where an individual who had made a perfectly truthful mistake will be subjected to re-entry ban under paragraph 320(7B)(d) for using Deception. The actual re-entry ban would be for ten years, which could be hardly an intended consequence of failure to answer an question properly.

It is far from clear why, having recognized that Deception as described by Paragraph 6 needs that the applicant himself should have been dishonest, the Upper Council considers that ‘all facets of paragraph 322(1A) are handled as Deception under paragraph 6.Whereas paragraph 322 (1A) describes about refusals whenever there is a false representation, whether or not it happened with the applicant’s knowledge. As a result, it may be argued that, paragraph 322 (1A) has a wider application than just deception.

It is clearly stated that according to paragraph 320(7A), there is a mandatory 10 year suspension to apply for immigration if the candidate himself who was dishonest. The best Immigration lawyers provide free advice and have successfully persuaded the immigration office about any deception made by human errors and did not engage paragraph 320(7B).

There, fore it is not enough for the immigration officers have a false document or a sign of false representation in an application to conclude the process as Deception. The Home Workplace would have to find that this applicant knew the record or representation was fake and submitted it using the deliberate intention of obtaining an immigration advantage. Even though it is left for the applicant to prove false deception, help of an immigration appeal lawyers London would be really useful.